India’s hegemonic designs in the region

In India, no matter who is at the helm of affairs, policy of intimidating its neihgbours through interference in their internal affairs and extending hegemony over them continues. All of India’s neighbors like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Maldives and Bhutan have been wary of its hegemonic designs. In the first week of November, Indian President, Pranab Mukherjee had visited Nepal, which was the first visit by a president in 18 years and he conveyed his government’s position on Indo-Nepal ties. Nepali government knew that people of Nepal are unhappy over India’s interference in their country’s affairs; and this was the reason that an undeclared curfew on Kathmandu roads was imposed for the safety of Indian president. The two Presidents talked of history, civilisation, culture, geography, and the proximity between the people of the two countries – all of which bring them uniquely closer; but did not make public the differences between the two countries.
Social media in general and most mainstream media in Nepal through opinion and editorials were critical of President Mukherjee’s central message: a reiteration of the Indian government’s support for an early amendment to the Constitution to address Madhesi demands and take ‘all sides together’. The media felt that this was gross interference in another country’s internal affairs. Given the high-profile responsibilities he handled before moving to the Raisina Hill four years ago, Mukherjee’s role in government had some bearing on the visit. As Minister of External Affairs, he was instrumental in securing the support of Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist for the ambitious Mahakali Hydro Project two decades ago. In fact, last year Nepali leaders had resisted Indian pressure demanding of Nepali government to hold on the constitution; but they announced the secular constitution of Nepal.
India had taken the position that communities living in the Terai, especially the Madeshis (said to be of Indian origin) and the Tharu ethnic minorities, were concerned over the proposed boundaries of the new provinces, which could lead to their political marginalization. Anyhow, the then Nepal’s Ambassador to India, Deep Kumar Upadhyay had said that “Foreign Secretary Jaishankar’s mission to Nepal just before Sunday’s ceremony of declaration of constitution, came too late.” India’s attitude and behavior with its neighbouring countries has been contrary to the norms of peaceful co-existence. Instead of recognizing their sovereignty and equal status, India wishes a pliant behavior on the part of its neighbours, and demands of them to act according to its dictates. India expects of its neighbors to formulate their external, internal and even defence policies according to its will and wishes.
Prime Minister K.P. Oli and Unified Communist Party of Nepal Maoists (UCPNM) Chairperson Pushpakamal Dahal appear to have buckled under Indian pressure, and reportedly decided to address the Indian concerns. Oli-Dahal had sent a new message to New Delhi about moving the constitution amendment bill in the parliament. India welcomed the move, but was of the view that if K.P. Oli continued to be at the helm, he could create other problems for India. It is an open secret that the Madhesh unrest was planned and sponsored by India, and wishes to advance its agenda through Madheshis and other minorities. Nepali leaders however had been saying that they would never surrender to Delhi but finally they decided to surrender to New Delhi and promised India’s Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar that amendment could be made after discussions with the opposition.
India has arrogated to itself the role of determining the extent of independence and sovereignty its neighbours will enjoy. Such bullying attitude was at display in 2009 when India had rebuked Sri Lanka for expressing a desire to procure radars and other smaller equipment from Pakistan and China, as Indian-origin radars in service with Sri Lanka proved ineffective and failed to detect air attacks of Tamil Tigers. Ignoring the fact that Sri Lanka was an independent and sovereign country and had the right to pursue its policies, M.K. Narayanan, then India’s National Security Advisor, had said: “We are the big power in this region. Let us make it very clear. We strongly believe that whatever requirements the Sri Lankan government has, they should come to us. And we will give them what we think is necessary,” he declared. This is language of hegemons and neocolonialists and not democrats.